Wash. Rev. Code » Title 29A · Chapter 29A.56
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.270 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The superior court of the county in which the officer subject to recall resides has original jurisdiction to compel the performance of any act required of any public officer or to prevent the performance by any such officer of any act in relation to the recall not in compliance with law.
The supreme court has like original jurisdiction in relation to state officers and revisory jurisdiction over the decisions of the superior courts. Any proceeding to compel or prevent the performance of any such act shall be begun within ten days from the time the cause of complaint arises, and shall be considered an emergency matter of public concern and take precedence over other cases, and be speedily heard and determined. Appellate review of a decision of any superior court shall be begun and perfected within fifteen days after its decision in a recall election case and shall be considered an emergency matter of public concern by the supreme court, and heard and determined within thirty days after the decision of the superior court.
[ 2003 c 111 s 1423. Prior: 1988 c 202 s 30; 1984 c 170 s 10; 1965 c 9 s 29.82.160; prior: 1913 c 146 s 14; RRS s 5363. Formerly RCW 29.82.160.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Writ procedure superseded by RAP 2.1(b), 16.2, 18.22.
Severability—1988 c 202: See note following RCW 2.24.050.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: In Re the Recall of Lindquist, 258 P.3d 9 (Wash. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Recall of Lindquist, 258 P.3d 9 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 6× “Fishburn maintained that his belief was based on RCW 29A.56.270. This statute, however, instead prescribes the time line for a sufficiency hearing based on the date the ballot synopsis is filed in superior court, stating that "[a]ny proceeding to compel or prevent the…”
Coalition for a New Spokane v. Dalton, 156 Wash. 2d 244 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 5× “f 9 A section of the recall statute, RCW 29A.56.270, entitled “Enforcement provisions — Mandamus—Appellate review,” specifically provides: The superior court of the county in which the officer subject to recall resides has original jurisdiction to compel the performance of any…”
In Re Recall of West, 126 P.3d 798 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 5× “¶ 9 A section of the recall statute, RCW 29A.56.270, entitled "Enforcement provisions — Mandamus — Appellate review" specifically provides: The superior court of the county in which the officer subject to recall resides has original jurisdiction to compel the performance of any…”
In Re Heiberg, 257 P.3d 565 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 4× “On November *568 23, 2010, Mayor Heiberg appealed the superior court's decision to this court pursuant to RCW 29A.56.270. ¶ 6 On April 1, 2011, we issued a brief order reversing the trial court's determination that the two charges were legally and factually sufficient.”
In re the Petition for the Recall of Heiberg, 171 Wash. 2d 771 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 3× “On November 23, 2010, Mayor Heiberg appealed the superior court’s decision to this court pursuant to RCW 29A.56.270. ¶6 On April 1,2011, we issued a brief order reversing the trial court’s determination that the two charges were legally and factually sufficient.”
In re the Recall Charges Against Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 Dir. Butler-Wall, 162 Wash. 2d 501 (Wash. 2007). “Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.270, Dawson filed a notice of appeal in this court.”
Matter of Recall Charges Against Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 173 P.3d 265 (Wash. 2007). “Pursuant to RCW 29A.56.270, Dawson filed a notice of appeal in this court.”
In re the Marriage of: Gene Edward Welton & Marina Lee Martin Welton (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Lindquist involved a petition for the recall of the county prosecuting attorney under RCW 29A.56.270. At a prehearing telephone 6 No.”
In re Recall of Riddle (Wash. 2017). “Riddle appealed the sufficiency ofthose five charges to this court pursuant to RCW 29A.56.270. The insufficient charge is not at issue.”
In re Recall of Riddle (Wash. 2017). “Riddle appealed the sufficiency ofthose five charges to this court pursuant to RCW 29A.56.270. The insufficient charge is not at issue.”
In re Recall of Riddle (Wash. 2017). “Riddle appealed the sufficiency ofthose five charges to this court pursuant to RCW 29A.56.270. The insufficient charge is not at issue.”
In re Recall of Lauser (Wash. 2026). “Lauser appealed the sufficiency of the charge pursuant to RCW 29A.56.270. ISSUE Whether the charge that Councilmember Lucy Lauser committed malfeasance or violation of her oath of office is factually and legally sufficient.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.